Systems and methods for the comparison of annotations within files

ABSTRACT

Systems and methods are disclosed for comparing annotations in files to show changes in the annotations at a granular level. In one implementation, a system receives a first file and a second file for comparison. The system determines the annotation ranges for each annotation in the first file and the annotation range for each annotation in the second file. The system then determines the annotations from the first file that overlap with annotations from the second file and compares annotations that overlap. The system then incorporates the comparison of the annotations into a main comparison file. In certain implementations, the system uses an index to determine what annotations overlap. In other implementations, matched pairs are created from overlapping annotations.

RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application Ser.No. 61/410,152, filed Nov. 4, 2010, the disclosure of which is expresslyincorporated herein by reference,

TECHNICAL FIELD

This disclosure generally relates to the comparison of annotationswithin multiple files and more particularly, to methods and systems forthe granular comparison of annotations within multiple files.

BACKGROUND

The need to manage and mitigate risks in documents, including changesmade to document versions by internal and external sources, has becomean essential component of a number of business specialties involved withdocuments that may be sensitive in nature, such as those found in thelegal, financial, government, and accounting business sectors.Professionals in industries that consistently engage in document sharingand collaboration within and outside of their organizations finddocument comparison programs essential in ensuring identification of allchanges made throughout a documents lifecycle and all sensitive metadataheld within their documents.

Multiple users may edit documents in a number of programs making changesto text, tables, images, and other embedded objects such as values,formulas, annotations and other document aspects. Reviewing a documentafter it has been shared with an external source, whether by humans orby computer programs, becomes necessary to accurately identify changesin the document content.

Conventional document comparison programs, such as WorkshareProfessional or Deltaview, SoftInterface Diff Do™, DocsCorp compareDocs,and Esquire Innovations iRedline, compare differences between twodocuments (e.g., word processing documents, spreadsheet documents,presentation documents, etc.), a task formerly reserved solely forhumans. These programs identify and ascertain differences in an original(first) and modified (second) document and display those differences ina third document, commonly referred to as a redline document.

These conventional document comparison programs fail to adequatelypreserve the context of changes in annotations (comments) betweenoriginal and modified documents. Specifically, the programs fail toclearly present changes in annotations at a granular level. Annotationtext is often stored in a different location than the text of the maindocument. Markers are placed in the document so that the location of theannotation and its text can be determined. But because the annotationtext is not part of the main document, many document comparison programsignore the annotation text or only show changes to this text as a newcomment inserted or deleted without showing the actual granular changes.For example, when a change is made to the content of an annotation in anoriginal file, this annotation is shown unchanged and the modificationis shown as a whole new insertion of a comment in a modified file. Otherdocument comparison programs insert the text of the annotation into thebody of the main document at the location of the annotation markerbefore performing a comparison. However, this results in a document thatis difficult to read.

In either case, the reader loses the context of the changes. Either theentirety of the comment is shown as changed, defeating the purpose of acomparison because a human must still review the two comments todetermine what actually changed, or the comment text gets mixed up withthe document text, making it difficult to discriminate between the textand the comments. Thus, with current systems the context of the changeis lost, limiting the user's ability to quickly decipher contextuallyrelevant changes to the document.

SUMMARY

Disclosed embodiments provide computer-based file comparison systems andmethods that allow comparison of annotations within files at a granularlevel to preserve context. Consistent with disclosed embodiments, asystem is provided for comparing annotations in files. In one aspect,the system includes a processor and a memory. The memory may includeinstructions that cause the processor to receive a first file and asecond file for comparison. The memory may further include instructionsthat cause the processor to determine an annotation range for a firstannotation in the first file and an annotation range for a secondannotation in the second file. The memory may further includeinstructions that cause the processor to determine that the firstannotation range and the second annotation range overlap and to comparethe first annotation and the second annotation, creating an annotationcomparison output.

Consistent with disclosed embodiments, a method is provided forcomparing annotations in files. In one aspect, the method includesreceiving a first file and a second file for comparison. The method mayfurther include determining an annotation range for a fiat annotation inthe first file and an annotation range for a second annotation in thesecond file. The method may further determine that the first annotationrange and the second annotation range overlap and compare the firstannotation and the second annotation, creating an annotation comparisonoutput. The method may also include comparing the first file and thesecond file to create a file comparison output and incorporating theannotation comparison output into the file comparison output.

Consistent with other disclosed embodiments, tangible computer-readablestorage media may store program instructions that are executable by aprocessor to implement any of the methods disclosed herein.

It is to be understood that both the foregoing general description andthe following detailed description are exemplary and explanatory onlyand are not restrictive of the disclosed embodiments, as claimed.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and constitute apart of this specification, illustrate several embodiments and togetherwith the description, serve to explain the disclosed principles. In thedrawings:

FIG. 1 is a diagram of exemplary system components that may be used toimplement disclosed embodiments;

FIG. 2 is a flow diagram illustrating an exemplary annotation comparisonprocess, consistent with disclosed embodiments;

FIG. 3 is a flow diagram illustrating an exemplary annotation matchingprocess, consistent with disclosed embodiments;

FIG. 4 is an exemplary weighted bipartite graph used to matchannotations, consistent with disclosed embodiments;

FIG. 5 is an example of an original file with an annotation;

FIG. 6 is an example of a modified file with annotations;

FIG. 7 is an exemplary partial word index for the original file,consistent with disclosed embodiments;

FIG. 8 is an exemplary partial word index for the modified file,consistent with disclosed embodiments;

FIG. 9 is an exemplary partial word index matrix for the original fileand the modified file, consistent with disclosed embodiments; and

FIG. 10 is an example of a comparison output showing the differencesbetween the original file and the modified file, consistent withdisclosed embodiments.

DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS

Disclosed embodiments may enable annotations, also referred to ascomments, in a first file and a second file to be compared at a granularlevel, making changes to specific words in the text of a commentapparent. In one aspect, the comparisons may be displayed such thatusers can easily discern changes in the comments as well as the mainbody of the two files. Reference will now be made in detail to exemplaryembodiments, examples of which are illustrated in the accompanyingdrawings. Wherever convenient, the same reference numbers will be usedthroughout the drawings to refer to the same or like parts.

FIG. 1 is a diagram of exemplary system components that may be used toimplement one or more disclosed embodiments. The components andarrangement, however, may vary. In accordance with certain disclosedembodiments, an annotation comparison application 130 may run on acomputer system 100. Computer system 100 may include a number ofcomponents, such as a processor 105, nonvolatile storage 110, memory115, operating system 120, input/output (I/O) devices 125, and bus 135.Annotation comparison application 130 may be a stand-alone applicationor may be incorporated into one or more other applications 140.Annotation comparison application 130 may reside in memory 115, and maybe loaded from storage 110 or from other external tangible storagemedium (not shown) through I/O devices 125. Instructions in annotationcomparison application 130 may be executed by one or more processors,such as processor 105, to perform features consistent with one or moredisclosed embodiments.

Computer system 100 may be a general purpose or notebook computer, amobile device with computing ability, a server, a mainframe computer, orany combination of these computers and/or affiliated components.Computer system 100 may communicate with network 150 through I/O devices125. For example, computer system 100 may establish a communication linkwith network 150, such as through a LAN, a WAN, or other suitableconnection that enables computer system 100 to send and receiveinformation, as described herein. Computer system 100 may be astandalone system or may be part of a subsystem, which may, in turn, bepart of a larger system, such as a networked desktop emulator. Computersystem 100 may be accessible to a user locally, or may be available to auser over the internet.

Processor 105 may be one or more known or later created processingdevices, such as a microprocessor from the Pentium™ family manufacturedby Intel™ or the Turion™ family manufactured by AMD™. Memory 115 may beone or more storage devices configured to store information used byprocessor 105 to perform certain functions related to disclosedembodiments. Storage 110 may be a volatile or non-volatile, magnetic,semiconductor, tape, optical, removable, nonremovable, or other type ofstorage device or tangible computer-readable medium.

In one embodiment, memory 115 may include annotation comparisonapplication 130 that, when executed by a processor, such as processor105, may enable the comparison of annotations in two or more files.Annotation comparison application 130 may be part of an application thatcompares files, or may be run as a sub program (child application) ofapplications 140, which may provide for editing or viewing of files.Memory 115 may also include an integrative support program that linksthe other programs and allows them to use a common database, provides acommon user interface, performs basic bookkeeping tasks, (such asstoring the user's input, etc.), and provides user guidance and help.Memory 115 may also include other programs that perform other functionsand processes, such as programs that provide communication support,Internet access, etc.

Methods, systems, and articles of manufacture consistent with disclosedembodiments are not limited to separate programs or computers configuredto perform dedicated tasks. For example, memory 115 may be configuredwith annotation comparison application 130, which performs one or morefunctions when executed by processor 105. Alternatively, memory 115 mayinclude multiple programs that collectively perform one or morefunctions of annotation comparison application 130. Moreover, processor105 may execute one or more programs located remotely from system 100.For example, system 100 may access one or more remote programs that,when executed, perform functions related to disclosed embodiments orprovide files for comparison to system 100.

Memory 115 may be also be configured with operating system 120 thatperforms known operating system functions when executed by system 100.By way of example, operating system 120 may include Microsoft Windows™,Unix™, Linux™, Apple™ Computers type operating systems, Personal DigitalAssistant (PDA) type operating systems, such as Microsoft CE™, or othertypes of operating systems. Accordingly, embodiments of the disclosedinvention will operate and function with computer systems running anytype of operating system.

I/O devices 125 may comprise one or more input devices and one or moreoutput devices that allow data to be received and/or transmitted bysystem 100. For example, I/O devices 125 may include one or more inputdevices, such as a keyboard, touch screen, mouse, and the like, thatenable system 100 to receive data from a user, such as selection of twofiles for comparison. Further, system 100 may include I/O devices 125that communicate with one or more output devices, such as a displayscreen, CRT monitor, LCD monitor, plasma display, printer, and speakerdevices, that enable system 100 to present data to a user, such as acomparison output file, I/O devices 125 may also include one or moredigital and/or analog communication input/output devices that allowsystem 100 to communicate with other machines and devices, includingother machines and devices connected to network 150. The configurationand number of input and/or output devices incorporated in I/O devices125 may vary as appropriate for certain embodiments.

Computer system 100 may also be communicatively connected to one or moredatabases 145 locally or through network 150. The databases may storeinformation and may be accessed and/or managed through system 100. Byway of example, the databases may be document management systems,Microsoft SQL databases, SharePoint databases, Oracle™ databases,Sybase™ databases, or other relational databases. The databases mayinclude, for example, data and information related to a particular fileto be compared or to settings used by annotation comparison application130. Systems and methods of disclosed embodiments, however, are notlimited to separate databases or even to the use of a database.

FIG. 2 is a flow diagram illustrating an exemplary annotation comparisonprocess 200, consistent with disclosed embodiments. In certainembodiments, process 200 may be performed by annotation comparisonapplication 130 when executed by a processor. Process 200 may be used tocompare annotations at a granular level, rather than showing annotationsas inserted and deleted. In Step 205, annotation comparison application130 may receive an original file and a modified file. A file may be adocument, a spreadsheet, a text file, an image, a database, a temporarybuffer, or any other type of file used to store information. A modifiedfile may be a version of the original file that has been modified by theuser, another person, or an automated process. The files may be locatedon system 100, on a system accessible to system 100 over network 150, ora combination of these. In Step 210, annotation comparison application130 may build word indexes for the original file and the modified file.A word index may include a representation assigned to each word in thefile. In some embodiments, the index may be associated with other datasuch as pixels, rows, columns, or coordinates, not just words.

For example, an index may include a number, an alpha-numeric code, orany other type of representation. In certain embodiments, the words inthe original file and the modified file may be assigned a numbersequentially, starting with a word index of one (1) for the first wordin the file. For example, if the original file contains the text “Thequick brown fox jumped over the log” the original file may have a wordindex that appears as “The (1) quick (2) brown (3) fox (4) jumped (5)over (6) the (7) log (8).” In other embodiments, words in a paragraphmay be assigned a number sequentially, starting with a word index of one(1) for the first word of the paragraph. In such embodiments, the wordindex may include a paragraph identifier in addition to the positionindicator, so that each word in the file is identified by its paragraphand the position within the paragraph. For example, words in the fourthparagraph of the original file may be assigned word indexes of 4.1, 4.2,4.3, etc. in addition to paragraphs, other logical portions of a filemay be used, such as cells, rows, columns, tables, pages, or sections.Other forms of representation may also be implemented without departingfrom the scope of the disclosed embodiments. For example, stringcharacters may be used (e.g., A, B, C), alpha-numeric text (e.g., A.1,A.2, B.1, etc.) or combinations of these representations. Aspects of thedisclosed embodiments may use any form of representation to reflect theword indexes or other type of index.

In Step 215, annotation comparison application 130 may use the wordindexes to determine an annotation range for each annotation in theoriginal file and each annotation in the modified file. When creating anannotation, a user may select several words in the body of a file forassociation with the annotation. Upon creation of an annotation, theannotation may be given a tag with a unique annotation identifier. Theannotation identifier may point to the location of the annotation text.The annotation text may be kept in a text frame, and the text frame maybe located before the paragraph, cell, image, or other object with whichthe annotation is associated. The starting location of an annotation maybe marked using a hidden character at the insertion point of theannotation. Another hidden character may mark the end of the annotation,with the words in between the two hidden characters being associatedwith the annotation. In some embodiments, the annotation range may bebased on other data associated with the annotation, such as pixels,rows, columns, coordinates, etc.

In one embodiment, by analyzing the word index following the hiddencharacter at the insertion point of an annotation and the word indexpreceding the hidden character at the end of the annotation, annotationcomparison application 130 may determine the annotation range for theannotation. By way of example, if a user has added an annotation for thewords “quick brown” in the sample text in paragraph 32 above, theannotation range would be 2-3 for that annotation.

In Step 220, annotation comparison application 130 may compare theoriginal and the modified files to create a comparison output file. Thecomparison of the main body of data in the files may be performed usingany known techniques, and may be performed by a process working inconjunction with annotation comparison application 130. The comparisonmay result in a comparison output file, also referred to as a redlinedocument. After performing the comparison, annotation comparisonapplication may correlate the word index of the original file with theword index of the modified file because the word indexes of deleted andadded words are known. In certain embodiments, annotation comparisonapplication 130 may generate, as a result of the comparison, a matrixthat matches each word and its word index in the original file with aword and its word index in the modified file.

In Step 225, annotation comparison application 130 may use theannotation ranges to create matched pairs of annotations from theoriginal file and the modified file. A matched pair of annotations maybe two annotations that are associated with the same set of data in theoriginal file and the modified file. The set of data may be, forexample, the same words for a paragraph, or the same cell of aspreadsheet, or the same pixels of an image file. As explained below inconnection with FIG. 3, matched pairs may be annotations withoverlapping annotation ranges. For any matched pairs, annotationcomparison application 130 compares the annotation text (Step 230). Incertain embodiments, annotation comparison application 130 may copy theannotation text from the original file to a first output file and theannotation text from the modified file to a second output file. In oneaspect, computer 100 (or any other computer system or processor) may runa file comparison process to compare the two output files. In otherembodiments, annotation comparison application 130 may place theannotation text in a table or matrix and a comparison process maycompare the table or matrix. Annotation comparison application 130 mayincorporate the results of the comparison of the annotation text intothe file comparison output file created in Step 220. In one embodiment,annotation comparison application 130 may accomplish the incorporationof the comparison results into the comparison output file by inserting ahidden character marking the beginning of an annotation before thelowest word index from the two annotation ranges and a hidden charactermarking the end of an annotation after the highest word index from thetwo annotation ranges. The annotation identifier of the resultingannotation may point to the location of the result of the annotationcomparison, which may show the differences between the two comparedannotations in redline. Other manners of incorporating the results intothe comparison output file may also be implemented.

In Step 235, annotation comparison application 130 may generateinformation that allows non-matched annotations from the original fileto be shown in the main comparison output file as deleted. In Step 240,annotation comparison application 130 may generate information thatallows non-matched annotations from the modified file to be shown in themain comparison output file as inserted. Process 200 may then end,having created information used to show granular comparison ofannotations.

FIG. 3 is a flow diagram illustrating an exemplary annotation matchingprocess 300, consistent with disclosed embodiments. In certainembodiments, process 300 may be performed by annotation comparisonapplication 130. Process 300 may be used to determine matching pairs ofannotations from the original file and the modified file so that thetext of the annotations can be compared, as described in Step 225 ofFIG. 2.

In Step 305, annotation comparison application 130 may correlate theword indexes of the original file to the word indexes in the modifiedfile so that the annotation ranges may be compared. In certainembodiments, application comparison application 130 may accomplish thiswith a matrix that pairs, when possible, words in the original file withwords in the modified file, as will be explained in more detail inconnection with FIG. 9. In Step 310, annotation comparison application130 may determine the set of overlapping annotations using thecorrelated word index and the annotation ranges. Annotations may beconsidered overlapping when they share at least one common word.Annotation comparison application 130 may use the correlated wordindexes to determine which words are in common. Words that are in commonmay appear in the annotation range of the original file and theannotation range of the modified file. An annotation in the originalfile may overlap with one or more annotations in the modified file, andvice versa.

In certain embodiments, annotation comparison application 130 may use aweighted bipartite graph process to determine which annotations overlap.The bipartite graph may have two disjointed sets. The first set may bethe annotations of the original file and the second set may be theannotations of the modified file. Each annotation may be identified byan annotation identifier. An edge in the graph may connect an annotationin the original file with an annotation in the modified file when thetwo annotations share at least one word. The edge may be weightedaccording to the number of words the two annotations have in common.

FIG. 4 is an exemplary weighted bipartite graph used to matchannotations, consistent with disclosed embodiments. In the example ofFIG. 4, the original file contains four annotations and the modifiedfile contains three annotations. The annotations are arranged as thevertices of graph 400. Edges 410 may connect annotations havingoverlapping annotation ranges. Each edge 410 may have an associatedweight 415. Weight 415 may represent the number of words the twoannotations have in common. For example, Annotation 1 has a range of45-47 and Annotation A has a range of 45-50, Edge 410 connecting thesetwo vertices has a weight (415) of 3 because words 45, 46, and 47 arecommon to both annotations.

Returning to FIG. 3, in Step 315, annotation comparison application 130may create matched pairs of annotations by matching an annotation in theoriginal file with the overlapping annotation in the modified file withwhich it shares the greatest number of common words. In embodimentsusing a bipartite graph, annotation comparison application 130 may matchpairs of annotations using a stable weighted bipartite graph matchingalgorithm, as is known in the art. Generally speaking, a stable matchingoccurs when there is no element A of the first matched set that preferselement B (that A is not matched to) of the second matched set, and atthe same time B also prefers A over the element B is matched to. Inother words, there is no pair that would prefer each other over theircurrently matched partner. In the example of FIG. 4, the algorithm mayresult in matching Annotation 1 with Annotation A, Annotation 2 withAnnotation B, and Annotation 3 with Annotation C. In this example,Annotation 4 may not have a match in the modified file and therefore maynot be part of a matched pair. Annotation 1 may be matched withAnnotation A because Annotation A shares three words with Annotation 1,which is greater than the one word it shares with Annotation 2.Likewise, Annotation 2 may be matched with Annotation B because itshares ten words with Annotation B and only one word with Annotation A.

An example of an exemplary annotation comparison process consistent withdisclosed embodiments is explained in connection with FIGS. 5 through10. In this example, a user may select two files for comparison. Thefirst file may contain text 505 and annotation 515, as shown in FIG. 5,although in other embodiments the file may contain other types ofdata,such as image pixels, rows, columns, etc. Annotation 515 may beginat position 510 and may end at position 517. As shown in FIG. 6, thesecond file may contain text 605 and annotations 615, 620, and 625.Annotation 615 may begin at position 617 and may end at position 618.Annotation 620 may begin at position 622 and may end at position 623.Annotation 625 may begin at position 627 and end at position 628.

After annotation comparison application 130 receives the first file andthe second file, it may create a word index in each file. FIG. 7demonstrates an exemplary word index for a portion of the first file. Asshown in FIG. 7, each word receives a unique representation. In thisexample, the representations are depicted numerically but other forms ofrepresentations may be used. FIG. 8 demonstrates an exemplary word indexfor a portion of the second file. After creating a word index in eachfile, annotation comparison application 130 may determine the annotationranges of annotations 515, 615, 620, and 625. For example, annotation515 may have an annotation range of 1-26, annotation 615 may have anannotation range of 1-29, and annotation 625 may have an annotationrange of 28-28.

Next, annotation comparison application 130 may compare the first fileand the second file to identify differences between the two files. Thecomparison may reveal, for example, that words 3 and 6-8 in the secondfile have been inserted and word 5 in the first file has been deleted.In certain embodiments, annotation comparison application 130 maygenerate a matrix, such as matrix 920 shown in FIG. 9, that correlatesthe word indexes from the first file with the word indexes from thesecond file. Annotation comparison application 130 may generate acomparison output file that reflects the result of the comparison of thetwo files, shown as document 1005 in FIG. 10.

Next, annotation comparison application 130 may determine the set ofoverlapping annotations in the two files. For example, annotationcomparison application 130 may determine that annotation 515 overlapswith annotations 615 and 625. As part of this determination, annotationcomparison application 130 may determine that the range for annotation615 of 1-29 correlates to a range of 1-26 in the first file and thatannotation 615 has 25 words in common with annotation 515. Annotationcomparison application 130 may also determine that the range forannotation 625 of 28-28 correlates to a range of 25-25 in the first fileand that annotation 625 has one word in common with annotation 515.

Annotation comparison application 130 may then determine that annotation515 and annotation 615 are a matched pair because they share more wordsthan annotation 515 and annotation 625, in certain embodiments, this maybe accomplished by creating a weighted bipartite graph, as describedabove in connection with FIG. 4. Next, annotation comparison application130 may compare the text of annotation 515 and annotation 615, creatingan annotation comparison output file that highlights any differencesbetween the text of the two annotations. For any annotations not part ofa matched pair, such as annotations 620 and 625, annotation comparisonapplication 130 may create an output showing the annotation text fromthe first file as deleted and annotation text from the second file asinserted. Annotation comparison application 130 may incorporate theoutput from the annotation comparison into the comparison output file,which was created when the contents of the first file and the secondfile were compared.

FIG. 10 depicts an exemplary comparison output file that includescompared annotation text. Annotation 1015, which represents a comparisonof annotations 515 and 615 shows that the words “must be” have beendeleted and the word “was” has been inserted in annotations 515/615. Thetext of annotations 1020 and 1025 show as inserted because annotations620 and 625 had no matching pair in the first file.

The foregoing descriptions have been presented for purposes ofillustration and description. They are not exhaustive and do not limitthe disclosed embodiments to the precise form disclosed. Modificationsand variations are possible in light of the above teachings or may beacquired from practicing the disclosed embodiments. For example, thedescribed implementation includes software, but the disclosedembodiments may be implemented as a combination of hardware and softwareor in hardware alone. Additionally, although disclosed aspects aredescribed as being stored in a memory on a computer, one skilled in theart will appreciate that these aspects can also be stored on other typesof tangible computer-readable media, such as secondary storage devices,like hard disks, floppy disks, a CD-ROM, or other forms of RAM or ROM.

Computer programs based on the written description and disclosed methodsare within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. Thevarious programs or program modules can be created using any of thetechniques known to one skilled in the art or can be designed inconnection with existing software. For example, program sections orprogram modules can be designed in or by means of DirectX, .NetFramework, .Net Compact Framework, Visual Basic, C, XML, Java, C++,JavaScript, HTML, HTML/AJAX, or any other now known or later createdprogramming language. One or more of such software sections or modulescan be integrated into a computer system or existing browser software.

Other embodiments will be apparent to those skilled in the art fromconsideration of the specification and practice of the embodimentsdisclosed herein. The recitations in the claims are to be interpretedbroadly based on the language employed in the claims and not limited toexamples described in the present specification or during theprosecution of the application, which examples are to be construednon-exclusive. Further, the steps of the disclosed methods may bemodified in any manner, including by reordering steps and/or insertingor deleting steps. It is intended, therefore, that the specification andexamples be considered as exemplary only, with a true scope and spiritbeing indicated by the following claims and their full scopeequivalents.

1-22. (canceled)
 23. A computer-based system for indicating differencesin annotations within files comprising: a memory storing instructions;and a processor configured to execute the instructions to: identify afirst annotation in a first file; determine whether a second filecontains a matching annotation corresponding to the first annotation;and create a comparison output file including an indication that thesecond file does not contain a matching annotation.
 24. Thecomputer-based system of claim 23, wherein the to the processor isfurther configured to: identify first annotation content correspondingto the first annotation; identify, when the second file contains asecond annotation, second annotation content corresponding to the secondannotation; calculate a degree of overlap between the first annotationcontent and second annotation content; and determine that the secondannotation is a matching annotation when the degree of overlap is abovea predetermined threshold.
 25. The computer-based system of claim 23,wherein the second file is a modified version of the first file.
 26. Thecomputer-based system of claim 23, wherein the first file is a modifiedversion of the second file.
 27. The computer-based system of claim 25,wherein the comparison output file indication provides that the firstannotation was deleted when the second file does not contain a matchingannotation.
 28. The computer-based system of claim 26, wherein thecomparison output file indication provides that the first annotation wasinserted, when the second file does not contain a matching annotation.29. The computer-based system of claim 23, wherein the indication isprovided in redline format.
 30. A computer-implemented method forindicating differences in annotations within files, the methodcomprising: identifying, by a processor, a first annotation in a firstfile; determining, by the processor, whether a second file contains amatching annotation corresponding to the first annotation; and creating,by the processor, a comparison output file including an indication thatthe second file does not contain a matching annotation.
 31. Thecomputer-implemented method of claim 30, further comprising: identifyingfirst annotation content corresponding the first annotation;identifying, when the second file contains a second annotation, secondannotation content corresponding the second annotation; calculating adegree of overlap between the first annotation content and secondannotation content; and determining that the second annotation is amatching annotation when the degree of overlap is above a predeterminedthreshold.
 32. The computer-implemented method of claim 30, wherein thesecond file is a modified version of the first file.
 33. Thecomputer-based system of claim 30, wherein the first file is a modifiedversion of the second file,
 34. The computer-implemented method of claim32, wherein the comparison output file indication provides that thefirst annotation was deleted, when the second file does not contain amatching annotation.
 35. The computer-implemented method of claim 33,wherein the comparison output file indication provides that the firstannotation was inserted when the second file does not contain a matchingannotation.
 36. The computer-implemented method of claim 30, wherein theindication is provided in redline format.
 37. A computer-based systemfor indicating non-matched annotations within files comprising: a memorystoring instructions; and a processor configured to execute theinstructions to: receive a first file and a second file for comparison;determine whether the first file or the second file contains anon-matched annotation; and provide a comparison output file includingan indication of the non-matched annotation.
 38. The computer-basedsystem of claim 37, wherein processor is configured to determine whetherthe first file or the second file contains a non-matched annotation by:identifying a first annotation in the first file and first annotationcontent corresponding to the first annotation; identifying, when thesecond file contains a second annotation, second annotation contentcorresponding to the second annotation; calculating a degree of overlapbetween the first annotation content and the second annotation content;and determining that the first annotation is a non-matched annotationwhen the degree of overlap is below a predetermined threshold or whenthe second file does not contain a second annotation.